-
Posts
1986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation Activity
-
Connie reacted to mordorbund in Til We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
I wonder if our readings of Oural's looks comes from our genders. Not too long ago, someone mentioned in a thread that complementing his wife is followed by her insulting herself. "You look good in those pants." "ugh- my hips are spilling over." Things like that. I've observed the same when women get together. There's some rule that you can't be comfortable in your own skin. For men, this is frustrating. Even if a woman doesn't believe a complement, she doesn't have to use Arachne's false humility for fear of offending. This form of mock humility is simply ingratitude and the woman doesn't see it that way. If you're paid a complement, simply say "thanks" and move on. Consider this: I bake you a cake (generic you - I don't even know if you're guilty of this stereotype) and a friend comes over to visit. "That's a lovely cake" she says. You reply, "sure, if you like crispy edges and miscolored frosting." I don't know anyone who thinks you're being modest with this statement. You are downplaying something that is genuinely delicious. A simple "thank you" is appropriate here, or you can even give credit where it is due, "Thanks, mordorbund made it for me". Humility is not defined for me by denying my talents but by acknowledging God as the giver. Joseph in Egypt is an excellent example of this. "You can interpret dreams?" "No, Pharaoh. I'm not very good. You should find someone else." Nope, Joseph responded that God interprets dreams and has blessed him with that gift. "Thanks Pharaoh. God sure has been kind to me."
I completely blame this tangent on you :). But back to the case at hand, does it matter whether Orual's ugliness is reality or merely perception? Initially, I was going to side with you that it doesn't. The key is that she feels "less-than". Her looks separate her from others, the inherent flaw in herself. Psyche experiences this as well, but not when looking at other people. She feels her shame in the presence of gods. Orual should experience this too, but instead she is focused on comparing herself to others. It is the ungodly sorrow that we heap upon ourselves when we should have godly sorrow instead. Too often we feel a gulf between ourselves and others (they are so much better than I) when the real gulf (the awful gulf) separates us from God!
So you're probably correct that it doesn't matter whether the ugliness is real or imagined, simply that she is focused on it. Notably, after seeing the god, she permanently veils her face (like an apron of fig-leaves if you will). Her attempts to fix herself are miniscule compared with what Ungit will do, but it's a start. At least now she's actually doing something about it.
On a different note, the old priest and the new priest. The old priest follows this theme of becoming, transforming into the god he has so long followed and impersonated. In his presence Orual is certain of the unseen divine (and hates him for it because he is so entwined with it). She has no such feelings with the new priest. Is the new priest a sham? Is he more political than spiritual? Is the difference just from a lack of experience with the divine (the old priest was, indeed, quite old)? That is, was the old priest like this once or is this priest in fact completely different?
Who does the king think veiled Orual is?
-
Connie reacted to mordorbund in Til We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
Psyche is a pretty clear Christ figure. I think it surpasses the generic messiah-trope. She is believed to have healing power - even going so far as to take the population's sickness upon herself. This of course is simply a foreshadowing for when she atones for the kingdom and land. The method of sacrifice is naturally a tree (cross/tree are interchangeable in the post-gospel New Testament). She is both flawless and accursed (in the Old Testament anyone who is hanged on a tree is accursed, making crucifixion especially hateful). Despite Orual seeing the gods as cruel, Fox viewing them as a myth surpassed by philosophy and learning, and her father's blatant disregard for all things pious, Psyche is drawn to her own sacrifice. She is the goddess in human form. Hers is the journey that every mortal takes to become divine.
The nature of the sacrifice is sacramental to the extreme. It is metaphor, myth, and literal all rolled together, enmeshed in such a way that to parse out one from the others becomes impossible. Psyche will be consumed by the god-who-is-also-a-beast. Psyche will be married to the same divine brute. Psyche will die. None of this makes any sense to Orual. She sees only ritual. For her, the holiness of Ungit's temple is the smell of blood and incense. It is not the sacrifice or the ritual but the forms (in a Greek sense) that she recognizes, so she is almost as blind as Fox in such matters.
I wonder if Orual is really as ugly and she thinks herself. She admits that there's only one top-quality mirror in the palace and the only time she sees herself in it is after she is severely beaten. Her father speaks of her being homely, but their relationship makes such assessments questionable. The captain seems to be the best indicator of the truth, and his overheard remarks are the only reason why I'm on the fence about this.
I'm about a third of the way through it. I'll have more as I go along.
In the meantime, read Oaks' talk Love and Law and see if you view this story any differently.
-
Connie got a reaction from Blackmarch in Til We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
This book is a retelling of the Greek myth of Psyche and Cupid--C.S. Lewis style. Yet this was unlike any other C.S. Lewis book i've read. The hubby felt like there must have been a heavy Tolkien influence. He described it as "C.S. Lewis through a Tolkien lens." I can't say i disagree. It has such a different feel than some of his other books.
I really enjoyed this story, and the hubby couldn't put it down. It is told from the perspective of Psyche's older sister, Orual. It has great characterization and is just overall a great retelling of this story. I would recommend this book to anyone.
-
Connie got a reaction from mordorbund in Til We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
As far as Psyche is concerned, i can see the mortal becoming a goddess that you mention. But as far as Orual herself is concerned, i think it is a versus. Within Orual, Psyche seems to represent her more spiritual/divine nature whereas Ungit seems to represent her human/selfish nature. This is shown particularly when she goes on her "I am Ungit" rant. It almost seems as if she decides her physical ugliness is representative of the "ugliness of her soul," and she has to decide if she will follow her selfish nature or become a "partaker of the divine nature."
The symbolism of this book is so subtle, and there are so many layers. This is the type of symbolism that is so dependent on what the reader himself brings to the table. So it's really interesting to see what other people think of it and what they get out of it. This is the type of book one can read over and over and get something new out of it every time. I'm really interested in your questions on ritual. That's not something i noticed this time around. I will have to think about it.
-
Connie got a reaction from pam in Jorg Klebingat - Saturday p.m. Session
I really like the meme i saw this morning on the Mormon Women Stand facebook page about this talk. I will definitely have to listen to this one again.
-
Connie got a reaction from Sunday21 in Til We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
This was on sale at Audible several weeks ago, and i took that opportunity to buy the audio of this book. I have finally been able to listen to it, and it is just as good the second time through as it was the first.
There are so many things one could discuss with this book. I feel like i totally get the selfish vs unselfish love that is a big theme in this book. This time through i was struck by the idea of Orual as both Psyche and Ungit. There is the part of the book where she is told "you too shall be Psyche" and then there is the part where she comes to feel that she is Ungit. My thoughts on this are that this is where the title of the book comes in--till we have faces. In the mortal realm is where we are striving to do and to become. But are we striving to become Psyche or Ungit. Which face will we choose. It made me think of Alma 5--have you received His image in your countenance.
-
Connie got a reaction from Crouching Chopsticks in Philosophy ?
I like Locke's ideas on government and equality. He also had some good things to say on toleration.
Lewis is just awesome. I have so many good quotes written down from him. I like many of the answers he gives to common questions on God and Christianity. He is often quoted by LDS general authorities.
-
Connie reacted to Roseslipper in What's the last book you read?
I just finished reading The Infinite Atonement by Tad R. Callister. It was awesome Ive learned alot will read it again. Wouldnt mind giving a talk in scaremet on it. Thank you for suggestion it connie.
Any one know of a book that gives alot of detail on Moroni??
-
Connie got a reaction from Crouching Chopsticks in Philosophy ?
I am a reader of philosophy. Some that come to mind are Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Francis Bacon, John Locke, Karl Marx, Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, C.S. Lewis, James Allen, and many others. I've even seen Paul on a list of the greatest philosophers, and one would be hard pressed to find a Latter-day Saint who hasn't read his writings. I'm quite partial to John Locke and C.S. Lewis.
The last philosophy book i read was Superheros and Philosophy, a collection of essays compiled by Tom Morris. Apparently it's part of an entire series of books called Pop Culture and Philosophy. Many of the essays were really quite interesting. I was particularly impressed with the ones by Tom Morris. He is quite the modern-day philosopher.
-
Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Doubt
A couple of thoughts strike me.
1. Faith and belief are a choice.
2. Questioning and not understanding are not necessarily the same thing as doubt.
-
Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Doubt
I think the question should rather be... Are people who have sinned and repented stronger than those who never sinned in the first place?
-
-
Connie got a reaction from classylady in L. Tom Perry - Sunday p.m. Session
Loved reading through this talk again. The last five paragraphs in particular are absolute gold.
I love the idea that to combate the complexity (the oh so many shades of grey we mortals insist on bringing to everything) of today we actually need greater simplicity. I love the simplicity of obedience and faith!
"Too often we think of obedience as the passive and thoughtless following of the orders or dictates of a higher authority. Actually, at its best, obedience is an emblem of our faith in the wisdom and power of the highest authority, even God."
I love that thought. It is how i've always seen the idea of following the prophet.
"Strong, proactive obedience is anything but weak or passive. It is the means by which we declare our faith in God and qualify ourselves to receive the powers of heaven. Obedience is a choice. It is a choice between our own limited knowledge and power and God's unlimited wisdom and omnipotence."
Really amazing talk!
-
Connie got a reaction from EarlJibbs in What’s the last movie you watched?
The last movie I watched was Oscar a couple of weeks ago. This movie stars Sylvester Stallone and is the story of a gangster named Snaps Provolone who tells his dying father that he will give up his life of crime and what happens on the day he attempts to do that. It’s hilarious! Apparently it’s based on a stage play. The hubby and I like to watch this one every once in a while. It’s the first movie that pops into my head with a male character named Connie. Here’s one of my favorite exchanges during the movie:
Connie: Even in the old days he was known as an honest crook.
Dr. Thornton Poole: That's an oxymoron.
Connie: Gee, you shouldn't oughta said that, Doc.
Snaps: Yeah, leave Connie alone. He does the best he can.
Also stars Tim Curry as Dr. Poole, the elocution teacher. It is rated PG.
So what’s the last movie you saw whether in the theatre or elsewhere? What is it about? Who are the actors/actresses? What’s it rated? Did you like it? Any favorite quotes or other things you’d like to share?
-
Connie got a reaction from Blackmarch in What's the last book you read?
I thought it was interesting the things she gave more detail on versus the things she kind of glossed over. She definitely has some fierce family loyalty as a wife, mother and grandmother. And that's one thing the entire family had. They were very loyal to each other. They went through so much together but were always there for each other through it all.
-
Connie reacted to mordorbund in What's the last book you read?
It was definitely a mother's account of things. Recounting Joseph telling the family about the Nephites smacks of a proud mother watching her child perform at a school play. The way she describes her feelings for little Lucy make me think she was babied even as an adult (like many children are who are born last). And she has nothing pleasant to say about the doctor who came to Alvin's side (I don't remember if she actually uses the word "quack" but the sentiment is there).
-
Connie got a reaction from mordorbund in What's the last book you read?
I thought it was interesting the things she gave more detail on versus the things she kind of glossed over. She definitely has some fierce family loyalty as a wife, mother and grandmother. And that's one thing the entire family had. They were very loyal to each other. They went through so much together but were always there for each other through it all.
-
Connie got a reaction from lds2 in Russell M. Nelson - Saturday pm Session
I really loved this talk. I love the idea of letting your faith show and of not separating various aspects of our lives.
"If one tries to segment his or her life into such separate compartments, one will never rise to the full stature of one's personal integrity--never to become all that his or her true self could be."
I like that he makes this a matter of integrity which means "whole." If we are dividing ourselves up in these kinds of ways we can never be whole. It reminds me of the CES devotional talk by Elder Holland where he said to "never check your religion at the door."
-
Connie reacted to classylady in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)
I really don't like the word feminist. It has such a bad connotation. But, as a woman, I have never felt inferior to men. Nor do I feel like men are inferior to women. We have our own strengths and weaknesses. I love being a woman, a mother, a sister, a wife. I'm appreciative of my husband who still opens the door for me and takes care of some of the messier jobs around the house. That doesn't mean I can't do all those things myself, but my husband is protective of me. That doesn't mean he doesn't think I can't do them. He knows I can.
My father died when I was a young child. I saw my mother take on the provider role, and she managed to provide for seven children, along with still being the nurturing mother. With her example, I have always known that if I needed to I could provide financially for my family and get along without a man in the house. But, do I want to? From my point of view that would be idiotic. But, if it was necessary I could do it. I also see where my husband, after he received full custody of his two children after his divorce, that he could also do the nurturing role and raise his children on his own. Are these situations ideal? No. My mother could never completely fill the role of my father. She could take on his responsibilities after he died, but she could never replace him.
My mother raised a family at a time when there was still discrimination against women. She once went to the bank to get a loan but, was declined solely because she was a woman. She had a steady income and had worked at the same job for quite a few years. The bank told her they don't loan to women. Do I believe in equal rights for women? You bet I do. But, that doesn't mean I want the priesthood or take on a man's role. I want my role as a woman and the inherent attributes and talents that go along with being a woman to be recognized as being just as important as a man's inherent attributes and talents.
-
Connie got a reaction from Backroads in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)
It was an interesting article. I am a bit uncomfortable with her harping on "Eve didn't sin" and stating unequivocally that this is "LDS doctrine." While i suppose that one could argue sin versus transgression, the consequences of both are the same--separation from God. However, she does not even do that in this article. Instead she claims what a good this was and that she was rewarded for it. Having to leave the presence of God is a reward? I think she is skipping over a big part of the picture here. She's right in that LDS doctrine does not condemn Eve or Adam. And yet, scriptures such as D&C 29:40-41 and 1 Timothy 2:14 are still part of the canon.
My favorite explanation of the Fall comes from Tad R. Callister's book The Infinite Atonement. He states that Adam and Eve lived under four conditions in the Garden of Eden; two positive and two negative. The positive are they were immortal and lived in the presence of God. The negative were they were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil, and that they could not have children. After the fall these four conditions became reversed. The positives became negatives and the negatives became positives.
I would have to conclude that she has decided to skip over the negatives and instead focus solely on the positives. And if that is the case, and while i personally disagree that is the way to explain the fall, i guess i can see where she is coming from and would probably grudingly agree despite what i consider to be some unfortunate choice of wording.
-
Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)
Another good thought that I didn't address. I actually did have this thought though. She talks about the childbirth thing being only positive, and clearly bearing children IS positive, but the "greatly multiply thy sorrow" thing and "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" certainly implies something more than -- "You did good Eve. Let me reward you."
As Connie suggests, the action in the Garden by Eve (and then by Adam) was transgression. And as much as LDS thinking does not condemn Adam and Eve, the reason is because they were willing to repent, take on covenants, and do the will of the Lord thereafter. Had Adam and Eve chosen NOT to repent of their transgression and submit to God's will, surely they would have been condemned.
-
Connie reacted to The Folk Prophet in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)
Yeah. Had some very interesting ideas, for sure. And my sense is that there's some real insight there. However, there are a couple of things that people like to just ignore and/or discard when speaking about "feminist" issues in the church in today's "equality" driven, politically correct world.
First, she talks about a mistranslated in the Bible of the world "over", wherein "rule over" should be "rule with". That's fine. But it kind of just disregards other scriptures. First Moses 4:22, which has the exact same wording. If "rule over" was wrong, why wasn't it fixed in Moses? And what about Colossians 3:18, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3:1, and the like?
Second, she sort of refers to a temple covenant in there. Without going into any detail here, I think it's problematic to ignore the older wording in the covenant that was softened in 1990. To just ignore that and throw it out as archaic implies that the actual covenant made prior to 1990 was false doctrine and every woman going through the temple prior to that was literally covenanting with the Lord to something that the Lord didn't actually want them to covenant. Seems problematic.
Finally, modern day LDS feminists in their approach to explaining the husband/wife dynamic tend to conveniently forget about polygamy. I know some use equality thinking to contend that polygamy therefore cannot logically be the eternal order of things. But there are way to many historical records of those in the early days of polygamy having visions of the eternities wherein the glory of it is what convinced them to join into polygamy for that to fly in my thinking.
I'm not saying the article is wrong or that men and women should not be equally yoked in the family dynamic...but there's something that is not being understood somewhere in there that needs to be addressed. I can't say I have explanations. But I can, certainly, notice that they're missing.
-
Connie got a reaction from The Folk Prophet in Fascinating article on the role of women (and men)
It was an interesting article. I am a bit uncomfortable with her harping on "Eve didn't sin" and stating unequivocally that this is "LDS doctrine." While i suppose that one could argue sin versus transgression, the consequences of both are the same--separation from God. However, she does not even do that in this article. Instead she claims what a good this was and that she was rewarded for it. Having to leave the presence of God is a reward? I think she is skipping over a big part of the picture here. She's right in that LDS doctrine does not condemn Eve or Adam. And yet, scriptures such as D&C 29:40-41 and 1 Timothy 2:14 are still part of the canon.
My favorite explanation of the Fall comes from Tad R. Callister's book The Infinite Atonement. He states that Adam and Eve lived under four conditions in the Garden of Eden; two positive and two negative. The positive are they were immortal and lived in the presence of God. The negative were they were in a state of innocence, without a full knowledge of good and evil, and that they could not have children. After the fall these four conditions became reversed. The positives became negatives and the negatives became positives.
I would have to conclude that she has decided to skip over the negatives and instead focus solely on the positives. And if that is the case, and while i personally disagree that is the way to explain the fall, i guess i can see where she is coming from and would probably grudingly agree despite what i consider to be some unfortunate choice of wording.
-
Connie got a reaction from Sunday21 in What's the last book you read?
Roseslipper,
I've been reading a book called Hearing the Voice of the Lord by Gerald Lund. I'm not quite finished with it yet, but it is a great one on getting closer to the Spirit. It has all the basics in it, and i have found great enjoyment as i have gotten deeper into it. It contains some really interesting insights.
-
Connie got a reaction from talisyn in Prayers for annewandering and her family
My heart is hurting for you. Condolences to you and your whole family. May the Lord bless you with comfort.